Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Good morning. Good morning. The devotional today will be led by Maura Kelly Lieb of Hartford. Thank

[Maura Kelly Lieb]: you. I'm going to read three poems by my son Matt Lee who passed away in December 2026 2024. Today, coincidentally, would have been his 20 birthday. So this is a lovely opportunity. The first poem is called Unconscious Truth. Out of the dimness came an unconscious truth, sedated and spitting tall tales through clenched teeth, with a mind like thick fog and a tongue like slick lightning. With ease, it it dissolved all the falsehoods in light. Each unsteady step was a new revelation of things to uncover that bade at the moon, but the treacherous day was a joke with no punchline. And they all wept together for the things they now knew. The next poem is titled Johnson, Vermont. Yesterday, we had the season's elevator music. It comes in the form of 40 degree weather and sunny skies when all there's been for weeks to see is dread dark, gray, and falling ice. Today, see deception. Soulful golden licks trickling through my sterile drapes wake me with a hopeful sigh, but outside is frigid, dead. Tomorrow, there may be mud, water, the fragrance of life rejoicing in the wake of a quick forgotten frost. But for now, I wear my coat and fill my ashtrays to the song of a frozen stream. And the final poem is called Nina in the Morning. The breeze tastes impossible here this morning. Leaf piles and cold dew, wood fires and a bouquet, deja vu in juniper, a sort of bitter been there before, you can't bring yourself to spit. After all, there's no telling when you'll return or of seeing if you left. An angler casts into cloudy blue ripples in crystal memory, mountain runoff, a temporal pool, gentle lights dancing to a daytime moon. When the sky turns, the hills sing a howling, moaning song, seance for thunder. And Thor made love with the wind in his hair. Cloud in the sky, you know how I feel. Leaves drifting on by to the horns, you know. Dawn is golden once again. It's a new life for me. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members we have received a request to read a house concurrent resolution that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. HCR two forty six is a house concurrent resolution designating 04/10/2026 as Vermont Children's Alliance Day at the state house. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk]: Whereas in Vermont, there are 13 child advocacy centers focusing on the challenges and solutions to the continuing prevalence of child abuse in our state. And whereas these important organizations provide critical support and representational services to children whose needs can be acute and who rely on centers to assist in transforming their lives, which may be harsh into a potentially more promising future. And whereas a child advocacy advocacy center provides forensic interviews, a safe meeting space, victim advocacy, and coordinated care to children that report sexual and physical abuse, and the 13 child advocacy centers operate collectively as the Vermont Children's Alliance. And whereas the vision of the Vermont Children's Alliance is to empower Vermont's child advocacy centers to provide equal and reliable access to support treatment, justice, and healing for every child. And whereas more specifically, the mission of Vermont Children's Alliance is to foster growth of the children's advocacy center movement by providing statewide support and resources, promote promoting awareness of child abuse and its impact on our communities. And whereas today, 04/10/2026, representatives of the Vermont Children's Alliance and its member child advocacy centers are visiting the state house to educate legislators on the importance of addressing the continuing problems associated with the abuse of our youngest Vermonters. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly designates 04/10/2026 as Vermont Children's Alliance Day at the state house and be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Vermont Children's Alliance.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any announcements? Member from Bridgeport.

[Unidentified Representative from Bridport]: Thank you, madam speaker. We just heard a resolution designate designating today Vermont Children's Alliance Day at the State House, and now we have the opportunity to recognize an organization and its members doing some of the most important and difficult work in our state. Across Vermont, child advocacy centers are showing up for children in their most vulnerable moments. When they've experienced abuse, when they need to be heard, and when they deserve care, dignity, and a path toward healing. Through forensic interviews, advocacy, and coordinated support, these centers help ensure that children are not navigating trauma alone, but instead are met with compassion and expertise. The Vermont Children's Alliance brings these show these centers together, strengthening their work and ensuring that no matter where a child lives in our state, they have access to the support and protection that they deserve. It is certainly not easy work, but it is essential. It is centered in believing children, protecting them, and building a Vermont where every child has the chance to feel safe and to heal. It is truly an honor to recognize them today and to welcome them to the State House. Madam speaker, I ask that you join me in welcoming the members of the Vermont Children's Alliance to the house today.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Bridgeport please rise and be recognized? Member from Fairfield.

[Unidentified Representative from Fairfield]: Thank you, madam speaker. I was told not to be funny or cute and no, I can't change who I am. I will, keep this simple because tomorrow is a simple man from Saint Albans' birthday, and, please help me wish him a happy birthday.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Happy bet birthday, member. Member from Williston.

[Unidentified Representative from Williston]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am thrilled to have another group of Colchester High School students with me today that have taken it upon themselves to learn more about the legislative process over several months. They're particularly interested in health care and housing policy, and I'm happy to be able to give them this opportunity today to see how we do our work. Thank you for welcoming them.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest member from Wilson please rise and be recognized? There any further announcements? Member from Hartford.

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie]: Madam speaker, today's devotional was given by Mollie of White River Junction, who read several poems written by her son, Matthew. Matthew loved to write and he loved Vermont. He honed his craft at Thetford Academy and for a time at Johnson State. He was often seen jotting down ideas for stories and poems during his shifts as a cashier at the Upper Valley Food Co op. Matthew passed away in 2024, And although he is gone, something of his life and spirit remains with us through his words. Please help me welcome Matt's mother, Maura Lee, to the body.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Hartford please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members, we will start with house bill one eighty senate bill one eighty one which is an act relating to eliminating the requirement for a pre sentence investigation for imposition of a deferred sentence. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk]: S one eighty one, an act relating to eliminating the requirements for a pre sentence investigation for imposition of a deferred sentence.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Next is senate bill 183 which is an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk]: S 183, an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the bill is passed in concurrence. Now we'll turn to senate bill two eighteen which is an act relating to reducing chloride contamination of state waters. The bill was referred to the committee on environment, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. The member from East Montpelier, representative Chapin, will speak for the committee. In effecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which also recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. The member from Woodstock, representative Kimball will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. The member from Underhill, representative Squirrel will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk]: S two eighteen, an act relating to reducing chloride contamination of state waters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from East Montpelier.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Madam speaker, Vermonters have drastically increased our use of road salt over the past decades to help improve public safety on roads, driveways, and sidewalks. It is also sometimes used in the summer for dust control. The use of road salt in The US began as an experiment on New Hampshire highways in 1938 and was adopted by the city of Detroit in 1940. In the forties and fifties, more cities picked up the practice. This evolved over decades to widespread use by Northern states, municipalities, and private entities across the Northeast Northeastern US over the decades. The use of salt in certain conditions dramatically improves public safety, reducing collisions and injuries, and its use has skyrocketed from 1,000,000 tons used in The US in 1954 to 10,000,000 in 1985 to 24,000,000 tons in 2019. It is now estimated that approximately 60,000,000 tons of road salt are used around the world each year with The US and actually the Northern Northeastern US accounting for about one third of the global use of road salt. While road salt is quite advantageous for public safety, this use of high levels of road salt is taking a very large toll at the public's expense on our cars, our transportation infrastructure, the safety of our drinking water, and our aquatic ecosystems. Salt and salt spray causes erosion, damages buildings, bridges, and paved surfaces, and corrodes cars. Estimates of the cost to the public for salt related rust damages alone are extremely high. We are benefiting but also paying dearly for this high use of road salt. In 2020, the US EPA estimated that road salt caused $5,000,000,000 in damages to infrastructure and cars each year. Salt dissolves in water traveling long distances through surface and groundwater affecting our rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes, as well as the quality of our drinking water supplies. Chloride pollution with the resulting increased salinity is detrimental to animal and plant life and is causing impaired waterways. When pollutants exceed levels set by the US EPA, the state must set a total maximum daily load or TMDL for the water as a plan to get that pollutant back to lower levels. This is also true when we exceed our Vermont standards. We have one chloride TMDL for Sunnyside Brook already in Colchester, Vermont. The Sunnyside Brook Watershed will have to have reductions in salt applications to meet this TMDL. We also have eight more waterways that are chloride impaired where TMDLs are being developed by the Agency of Natural Resources. In addition, road salt ends up in our drinking water. And as it flows through our pipes, the corroding of our water pipes leads to the leaching of heavy metals, including lead, into our drinking water. This is being found in individual homes and buildings, and at a much larger scale can affect whole communities. Road salt and the resulting chloride pollution in Flint, Michigan's drinking water supply was identified as a key contributor to their citywide lead contamination crisis. This bill would enable our agency of natural resources to set best management practices for road salt use statewide and creates voluntary training and certification programs for private and municipal salt applicators. It provides limited liability protection from a negligence claim for those salt applicators that are certified and for landowners who utilize a certified salt applicator for property management. This limited liability protection is intentionally narrow, but it is a critically important aspect of the program. While there is no data on how many slip and fall lawsuits are brought against municipal and private salt applicators and landowners in Vermont. We know they do happen. For a salt applicator to be willing and comfortable to follow best management practices, they expect the protection from liability in situations where the hazard that results in an injury is from and is from snow or ice, and the applicator was following the BMP's best management practices. Without the liability protection, there will continue to be pressure to more liberally apply SALT than is necessary to protect themselves from the potential liability inherent in our system. The bill also includes a public education component to help ensure Vermonters understand the impacts of the overuse of salt as well as a study on public salt and sand storage facilities, how many public facilities we have across the state that are currently uncovered, where they are located, their proximity to surface waters, and the estimated cost to cover these facilities. This bill is an important next step to holistically protect our groundwater, our surface waters, our cars, and our infrastructure from chloride impacts rather than approach the issue piecemeal, one stream and one TMDL at a time while ignoring the root of the problem. Our agency of transportation already has and follows best management practices to best balance the use of salt on our highways. There's already training for municipal road crew staff on best practices and salt application through our state's local roads program. Many municipalities and road crew members are of California, applicators. This is the path that our Agency of Natural Resources is recommending to address chloride pollution in our waterways. We cannot continue to distribute salt into our environment in rapidly increasing amounts as we have over the past decades, and this is a voluntary, cost, and logical way to address the issue. This is not a new concept or program. Our neighbors in New Hampshire implemented a very similar program over a decade ago and have more than 700 salt applicators who are trained, certified, and using best management practices for SALT application across their state. I will now walk through the bill, which can be found on the legislative website for the bill as passed by the senate. Section one, purpose intent and intent. The act's purpose is to establish accepted standards of care for the application of salt and salt alternatives in an effective and efficient manner that provides safe conditions for pedestrians and motor vehicles while also reducing the impacts of salt and salt alternatives on the quality of the waters of our state. Section two establishes the program at the Agency of Natural Resources. It begins with definitions including that salt means sodium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, or any other substance containing chloride used for the purpose of deicing, anti icing, or dust control. Salt alternative are substances that contain, not containing chloride, used for deicing, anti icing, or dust control. And a commercial salt applicator means any individual for whom compensation applies salt or salt alternatives, but does not include municipal or state employees. Section thirteen sixty two establishes that the Secretary of Natural Resources, after consultation with the agency of transportation and other states with similar chloride reduction programs, shall establish the chloride contamination reduction program. The program will provide voluntary education, training, and certification of commercial salt applicators regarding effective application of salt and salt alternatives to provide safe conditions for pedestrians and motor vehicles while also reducing impacts of salt and salt alternatives on water quality. On or before 07/01/2027, ANR shall adopt by rule best management practices for application of salt or salt alternative by commercial salt applicators. That best management practices shall establish measures or techniques to increase efficiency in the applications so that the least amount of salt or salt alternatives are being used while maintaining safe conditions for pedestrians and motor vehicles. They shall establish standards for when and how application occurs in order to prevent salt or salt alternatives from entering the waters of the state. Shall establish record keeping requirements, create and circulate a model form for record keeping information, and establish requirements for testing and certification. This section outlines how the trainings shall be offered, that certification will be valid for two years, and that a business or that employs multiple commercial salt applicators may apply for certification of the owner or other employee as a master commercial salt applicator who shall ensure that all persons employed by the business as applicators are trained to comply with the best management practices. Certified commercial salt applicators shall submit annual total winter salt usage to Agency of Natural Resources, and the secretary may revoke a certification for a violation of the program requirements. The program shall specifically exclude salt applications related to transportation infrastructure construction projects, And the secretary may elect to implement the program with state agency staff or through a third party vendor or some combination. Section thirteen sixty three provides for qualified immunity. A limited liability protection for certified commercial salt applicators through the use of what's called an affirmative defense. If a certified commercial salt applicator or an owner, occupant, lessee of real property maintained by a certified commercial salt applicator is sued for injury relating to snow or ice, they shall not be liable for damages when the hazards are caused solely by snow or ice, and any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazards is the result of the certified applicators implementation of the best management practices for application of salt or salt alternatives. The limitation on liability provided shall not apply when the damages are due to gross negligence or reckless disregard of the hazard. Gross negligence is the reckless or wanton disregard for the safety of others. Accurate records are required to show that BMPs were followed. An applicator must maintain records for three years, which is also the statute of limitations on tort liability claims. Section thirteen sixty four provides a presumption of compliance related to water quality. A certified commercial salt applicator is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are in compliance with water discharge and storm water permitting requirements when applying according to the best management practices. The rebuttable presumption shall not apply to requirements of a TMDL or an MS four permit. Section thirteen sixty five directs ANR to conduct education and outreach to inform both commercial assault applicators of the existence of the program and the limited liability benefit, and members of the public about the potential harm from excessive salt application. Section three requires a report from the agency of natural resources on or before 01/15/2027 regarding state and municipal storage facilities for salt and sand storage. The report shall include an inventory of state and municipal facilities used for storage of salt, salt, and sand mixtures or sand, the number of facilities that are currently covered, the number of facilities that are not covered and with or within a 100 yards of a surface water or drinking water source, the number of facilities that are not covered and more than a 100 yards from a surface water or drinking water source, and the cost to cover or move facilities, storing salt, salt and sand mixtures, or sand. Section four addresses best management practices and training for municipal salt applicators through the Vermont Local Roads curriculum. It requires that the agency of natural resources in collaboration with the agency of transportation make changes to the voluntary Vermont Local Roads curriculum to include best management practices for spreading salt on roads, parking lots, and sidewalks. A municipal salt applicator means any individual who applies or supervises others who apply salt or sand alternatives in the applicator's capacity as an employee or agent of a town or a municipality. Beginning 07/01/2027, a municipal employee shall have an affirmative defense against a claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice if the municipal salt applicator completed the Vermont local roads curriculum providing best management practice for applying salt or salt alternatives on roads, parking lots, and sidewalks in the previous three hundred and sixty five days and if the alleged damages are caused solely by hazards from snow or ice and if any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazards is the result of the municipal salt applicators implementation of the best management practices learned under the Vermont Local Roads curriculum. Liability protection shown again not apply to damages due to gross negligence or reckless disregard of a hazard. To maintain the liability protection of municipality shall keep a record describing its road, parking lot, and maintenance practices consistent with ANR's requirements under the local roads curriculum. Okay, we're almost there. Section five requires ANR to solicit interest from third party vendors for training and certifying commercial salt applicators on or before 01/15/2027. ANR shall submit to the legislature also a recommended fee to charge for certification of commercial or municipal salt applicators and any such fees to be charged will need approval of the general assembly. Section six, the bill originally was estimated to cost $350,000 to implement in year one. This section states the duty to implement most sections of the bill is contingent upon an appropriation to implement the program. So there is no, there is no appropriation in the bill. We will still get a report from the ANR on salt storage from section three as that section is not dependent on appropriation. Section seven states that the act would take effect upon passage. We heard testimony from and I'll just note that our committee actually worked on this bill extensively as a house bill last year, and so we listened to testimony last year that I'll list right here. And then the senate moved this language from the house bill into this current senate bill that we're reviewing and made changes only to the liability protection sections. So everything else is is work that we had extensively worked on in our committee. We heard testimony last year from the water protection advocate at the Lake Champlain Committee, owner of potential view, a property management company, conservation and stewardship section manager of the Vermont Agency of Transportation, and the Vermont Local Roads branch manager at the Agency of Transportation, a board member from the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds, the director and deputy director of the watershed management division at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, a lobbyist representing Vermont Association of Justice, extension associate professor of the Rubenstein School at the University of Vermont, the chief scientist from the Lake Champlain Basin program, the assistant director of the water division at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the coordinator of the salt reduction program and Green Snow Pro certification program at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the deputy chief counsel of the office of legislative council, and a private salt applicator and former state representative. Your committee on environment voted to pass the bill as, that came over from the senate on a vote of eight three zero, and the committee requests your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Woodstock. Stock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Madam speaker, the bill was referred to the house ways and means committee because it contained both the, potential creation of a fee and it also affects the revenues of municipalities in the state. We reviewed the bill. The section that creates a fee is for the certification of commercial salt applicators that is sometime in the future. It is not designated in this bill as to what that fee is or or when it would be applied. It could affect the revenues of Vermont municipalities but the joint fiscal office was not able to calculate the cost or the savings associated with the chloride contamination reduction program. The fee, as I said, is not yet set in this bill, but is to be later recommended by the secretary of the agency of natural resources. These fees are subject to later vote and approval by the general assembly. Having no immediate impact on the revenues of the state, the committee found it favorable by a vote of nine two zero. We heard from, members of the joint fiscal office as well as, attorneys from the office of legislative council. And we recommend that the body agree. Thanks.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell]: Thank you, madam speaker. House Appropriations Committee reviewed s two eighteen with legislative council, twenty fiscal office, the sponsor and reporter of the bill. There are no appropriations in s two eighteen. However, section six provides that the duty of ANR to implement section two which is a chloride contamination reduction program. Section four municipal salt applicators and five fee report is contingent on an appropriation from the general fund as a member from Woodstock mentioned. The house committee on appropriations favorably recommends s two eighteen as passed senate and recommended by house environment on a vote of ten one zero. We ask for the body support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Holtney.

[Unidentified Representative from Williston]: Madam speaker, I'm not sure if I heard the vote out of the committee on ways and means.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yeah. Thank you, madam speaker. The vote was nine two zero. Sorry if I, did not mention that. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Franklin.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: A member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: Madam speaker, I believe I heard in your opening remarks that you referenced a TMDL for salt in some place in Vermont. Is that correct?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Yes. It is. It is Sunnyside Brook in Colchester.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: I believe of course, as you as you know, I interrogated pretty heavily in when it was in our committee, and, my understanding was there were no TMDLs in Vermont or in the country. How did that this come to pass?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I think you're asking whether I shared something different in your committee?

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: That's correct.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: No. We discussed I think alleged counsel shared that there were TMDLs in Vermont.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: That was not my understanding. So where was the who set the TMDL? That was obviously ANR set the TMDL. Is that correct? Was it a rule making process? How did this come to be?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: ANR, it's not a rule making process. ANR does develop the TMDL and then it has to be approved by the EPA in that case in in in Colchester and that has already been done.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: Does the EPA have a TMDL for salt anywhere in the country?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I I am certain that there are other TMDLs for chloride pollution in other waterways across the country. Yes.

[Unidentified Representative from Franklin]: Thank you, madam speaker. I supported this this bill in committee, and I'm gonna support it now. But it it doesn't feel good if there's a backdoor heading for a TMDL without proper vetting. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Barrie City.

[Unidentified Representative from Barre City]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from Barre City]: Madam speaker, I I apologize. I know that eight eighty six h 86 was also a salt bill very similar to this one, And they had discussed the liability for municipalities, and I believe the presenter mentioned that there was a conversation about that. Can the presenter provide a reason why they did not include it?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Yes. We did include a limited liability provision, but the content of that limited limited liability protection and the type of tool changed from h 86 to s two eighteen. Our house judiciary, looked at the bill last year and heard, both our committee and house judiciary heard concerns, about the liability provision, very similar, a very slight adjustment in the tool, did address some of the concerns of the Vermont leagues, league of cities and towns, and, what came over from the senate had the affirmative defense, which is a very similar but slightly different tool. So that section was revised, but it still is providing the same kind of tool that was both an h 86 and an s two eighteen.

[Unidentified Representative from Barre City]: Madam speaker, the when I went through the bill, I couldn't find the the so VLT VL CT wanted to do or have an amendment on there for the cap of 500,000, and I'm I'm curious if the committee had taken any testimony regarding that.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: We did not. We never saw that language in any bill.

[Unidentified Representative from Barre City]: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So just for the madam speaker, thank you. Thank you for the yeah. I just wanna let the body know that I will be bringing forward an amendment regarding liability for municipalities that do not qualify for the the restrictions outlined in here, that will be forthcoming.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Milton.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Did the committee hear testimony from town or city hands on road crews, directors of the departments, what they feel is safe for their communities depending on what the road conditions are on that during a particular storm?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: We did not because this is a voluntary program and towns, municipalities are already utilizing practices that are trained through the Vermont Local Roads program. This is not really new to municipalities. It will be what will be new for municipalities is is the liability protection for their salt applicators.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Am I understanding we didn't even hear testimony from V Trans hands on road crew.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Oh, we heard quite a bit of testimony from the agency of transportation as well as league. I think I neglected to list the league when I spoke about who we heard testimony from. I apologize about that. I'm just looking at the list. I don't believe we heard from municipality, but we certainly heard quite a bit of testimony from the local roads program, branch manager at the agency of transportation, and others at the agency of transportation and the league.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Madam speaker, after reviewing the cost to the taxpayers, the 350,000 reoccurring cost, 200,000 for a classified position that will be reoccurring, I will be voting no for the taxpayers.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Derby.

[Unidentified Representative from Derby]: Madam speaker, driving down from the Northeast Kingdom every day here to the State House. I pride myself in my ability to be an ice road trucker. The roads are typically ice covered from home all the way to Putnamville or the town line of Middlesex, and then I drive in on bare roads. One day, this winter, I had to leave the State House and head north up to Milton to pick up some truck parts, and driving up the interstate was quite a challenge until I got closer to Burlington, Richmond, I think. And all of a sudden, the interstate from shoulder to shoulder was clear and devoid of snow and ice. And, you know, I I can understand where we have this problem with chloride in certain parts of the state. I also serve on a school board, and our schools have a bare driveway policy and use a lot of salt and plowing to keep our driveway safe for all that enter our schools. And I'm a little bit fuzzy on this limited liability. So if I could interrogate the presenter of the bill on that question.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from Derby]: So, madam speaker, if a private custom snow removal salt and sand applicator takes the required courses and get and becomes certified, are they and the business that they're doing the work for, are they absolved of any liability in a slip and fall?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: So it's not a total immunity. It is a limited liability protection. So let me just read my notes on this topic. Total immunity places the burden on the plaintiff to prove prove that there was negligence, while an affirmative defense, what's being used here, places the burden on the defense to make arguments and demonstrate that they met the requirements to have the liability protection. So it allows the person that was harmed to bring a to bring a claim and have an opportunity to make their case to the court compared to total immunity that would not allow claims. So the certified SALT applicator would need to demonstrate that they were following the best management practices and must maintain records of that practice and retain them for three years and then would have to demonstrate that in court to receive the liability protection. But as long as they're following the practices and the training and they're up to date on their certification and they have the records and the slip and fall or the injury was caused solely due to snow and ice, then, yes, they would not be held liable for that situation.

[Unidentified Representative from Derby]: Thank you. Madam speaker, a good friend of mine runs a business up home in Newport, and they had a slip and fall. And they settled, although and he he said it was cheaper to settle than to defend himself. And I worry with this, and it'd be more more incidents like this. I can't support this bill without complete liability. Thank you. Complete protection from liability. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Middlebury.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Madam speaker, I would like to correct something or clarify something in a previous member's comments. There is no money in this bill. The only thing that this bill is required to do is to prepare a report that we understand from the House Environment Committee and ANR is already doing most of that now, but it's complete inventory, but there is no money, no taxpayer money is going into this bill. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Shelburne.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Madam speaker, salt degrades our transportation infrastructure, imperiling investments we intend to last a hundred years. Taxpayers pay when we have to repair corroded bridges. V Trans has developed practices that remediate these issues, expanding this success to the municipal and private sectors will protect water quality and the integrity of state and town infrastructure saving Vermont taxpayers money. I think this bill is an incredibly important step in the right direction. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Milton.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: I am reading off the fiscal note, and it says implementation of the chloride contamination reduction program would be contingent upon general appropriation for this purpose. ANR estimates an appropriation of 350,000 would be necessary for the program's implementation consisting of a 200,000 appropriation for contract services and 150,000 recurring appropriation for one permanent classified position. Additionally, the agency of transportation estimates estimates the implementation of municipal salt applicator training through Vermont local roads program would require a reoccurring appropriation of 200 k thousand for one permanent classified position. I guess it was wrong on the fiscal note. Apologize. I really apologize. It was wrong in the fiscal note.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member for Middlebury.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Madam speaker, a contingent, the fact that it's contingent means that money has to be appropriated in order for those expenses to be incurred. In the bill, we are not appropriating any money to do any of those things. The fiscal note is correct. It's contingent upon money being appropriated. The bill says the same thing, but of house appropriations and this body is not appropriating any money to for this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read at third time? Member from Middlebury.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think it's important for the body to realize that one of the origins of this bill was the commercial operators who were being asked by their customers, to reduce salt usage because their property owners were seeing impacts in their, landscaped environment. The natural environment was dying on the properties because of excess salt and the commercial operators came requesting some liability coverage. This bill is truly a conservative nonregulatory approach applying the old adage of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Saint Albans City.

[Unidentified Representative from St. Albans City]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter to the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from St. Albans City]: Madam speaker, I understand and appreciate the limited liability for certified applicators. Would this limited liability also be extended to private property owners if these applicators apply SALT on?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Yes. It does. Along with tenants or anyone who is hiring the salt applicator to come in and, apply salt.

[Unidentified Representative from St. Albans City]: So, madam speaker, in a in a scenario, that well, that I that I had been involved in. So I'm running a commercial lot with retail customers and let's say that there's a certified celled applicator that followed whatever the rules were that were made and there was a slip and fall and and the with bodily injury resulting, would would the the owner of the property then be, immune from from liability for that injury?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Well, it's not the total immunity, but it is they would have limited liability. And, again, like I described earlier, both landowners, lessees, and the opera and the actual salt applicators that are certified all have the same limited liability protection where an affirmative defense is required. And if they're meeting all of those things, they've used the best management practices, the applicator is is maintaining records, and and the fall or the injury is solely due to snow and ice and it's related to the application of the salt according to the best management practices, then, yes, they're all both the applicator and the landowner or the lessee are all covered with the same limited liability protection.

[Unidentified Representative from St. Albans City]: Okay. Well, I I appreciate the response, and what I'm what I'm hearing is is that I would still be litigating in that in that scenario. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Milton?

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Madam speaker Member from Milton?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Milton, are you gonna seek permission to speak a third time?

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Sorry. Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Heartland, did you call point of order? Yeah. K. Member from Milton, are you requesting, permission to speak a third time?

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Absent objection.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: Madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Absent absent objection. Member, you may go forward.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: So I can interrogate this speaker? Okay.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated. So

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: if there's no money being used from the state, will municipalities have to come up for the with the money for the training of their employees with with the local taxpayer dollars?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Right now and for the past number of years, municipalities can send their staff to the local roads program under the Vermont Transportation Agency of Transportation or B TRANS, to be trained in best practices. Those best practices are not I'm I'm not familiar with exactly what is in those best practices. If this bill passed, they would be revised and amended. But currently, there are best practices. They there is training for municipalities, and municipalities some municipalities do utilize that. It's a huge benefit to the municipality to be utilizing the most appropriate amount of salt in the most appropriate times of the day at the in with the most appropriate equipment to to reduce their expenses for the town. So this the reason this training exists is to particularly support municipalities with managing their salt use and their the financial burden that comes with the purchase of salt.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: So who pays for the training? If they go to the training, where do the dollars come from for the training?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I would have to check on that. I am I it my understanding is it's either that that that is covered by the VTRION's budget or the municipal municipalities budget. I don't know if municipalities are paying for the local roads training program. I would have to find that out.

[Unidentified Representative from Milton]: I guess I would still have to vote no because I I am concerned about taxpayer dollars if it's not now at future time in history.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from

[Unidentified Representative]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative]: Just one question, member, and I'm curious why the body should pass a bill and create a program that isn't funded.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Thanks. I was waiting for somebody to ask that question. I can't speak for you all, but I think it's really important to pass this bill because, first of all, it ensures a robust report back to us about salt and sand storage that I think is critically important, And it enables the agency of natural resources and the administration if if and when they find funding for this very, very high return on investment program. If they found that those dollars, they would be able to implement it, and it puts us in a position to down the road look for that funding and trying so it sets us up on the path. That's the reason I support a bill like this that doesn't yet have all the funding for all the sections it needs, but is a critically important and huge return on investment when we do find the funds.

[Unidentified Representative]: I thank the member, and just a quick follow-up. I'm curious if the success of the program is contingent upon future funding.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear very well. Can you repeat that?

[Unidentified Representative]: Is the success of the program contingent on future funding?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I think most of the outcomes will not happen without the funding. So, yeah, yes, I don't think people are gonna start utilizing best management practices that don't exist yet and be able to reduce their use of salt in the most appropriate ways without such a program.

[Unidentified Representative]: Thank you, member. Given what given what we just heard, I think I have no reservations about the legislation. It seems very premature to me, and I will be voting no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Weitzfield.

[Representative Dara Torre]: Madam speaker, I just wanna speak really briefly on this bill. I think this is a really important bill. I appreciate the members concerns about cost. That's something we should be thinking about all the time in this current financial climate. This program has case studies. New Hampshire has been cited. New York State, the Adirondacks. There are numerous case studies there. Salt is very expensive. I think we knew, you know, this winter there was a salt shortage. Salt has only gone gotten more expensive. And this program teaches is a is a is not mandatory. It teaches private applicators how to best use this very expensive resource and once they learn these best practices, they use less salt, they spend less money and they get good results that and they have, you know, indemnification for situations, most situations unless there is gross negligence. So this to me is a win win and it will save money and it will save, our natural resources and I so I'm just speaking in support of this bill. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Swanton.

[Unidentified Representative from Swanton]: Thank you, madam speaker. In a lot of ways, feel like a little bit of a rerun where we've been on this bill before and on on some other pieces that go in this direction. I'd just like to highlight a couple of things and then get into my main point. In twenty sixteen, seventeen, chloride was at 11 parts per million in Lake Champlain. In 2025, according to Lake Champlain Basin chamber Basin report, was 15 parts per million. And in 2026, the most recent report came out that we're holding at 15 parts per million, including already a significant portion of spring runoff, which is the biggest issue that impacts. The EPA level for salt as a chronic issue to a waterway is two thirty parts per million. 15 times where we are today. So crisis, no. Important environmental issue, absolutely. But let's just be very clear the difference between 15 parts per 15 times that at 230. I don't wanna go in that direction either. But I will point to section three as something we do in this body on a regular basis. We wanna inventory and look at salt sheds across the state. Environmental mitigation projects. We have them in our budgets. We have them in the bills. Not in this bill, but in many other bills. Our municipalities, 16 environmental mitigation projects, salt sheds, have been canceled in the last two and a half years by municipalities. Why? 16 of them. Why? They want to build salt sheds in the new manner, in the best possible way to help address the issues that are in the watershed, and 16 have been canceled. Why? Brookline, Enisburg, Fairhaven, Milton, Stockbridge, select board sites specifically, zoning and environmental review, uncertain time frames for construction, appeal after appeal, an unlimited an undetermined amount of expense that will be coming, a timeline that they can't guarantee to their taxpayers, as well as a massive increase in expense to construction, which is born by local taxpayer dollars. We are not offering any help for municipalities to, as we said, save money and manage salt at the level that we need to to actually impact these numbers. 16 towns. Milton, most recently here in 2026, had to cancel the projects because they couldn't put the burden on their taxpayers of an environmentally policy review at a complete undetermined time frame. Come to a we need a bill that would help build these salt sheds. Wardsboro, Castleton this year, Tinmouth, it goes on and on. Edisburg, all in the salt you look at the river basin, comes down to Lemoyle, comes down to Masiskiwa, it goes right into the lake. 16 of these municipalities who wanted to do the right thing, wanna build environmental mitigation plans, which are salt sheds, and we make it incredibly hard with our land use rules. We make it incredible hard with the exact environmental protections to keep us from building the very thing that we want. So we can pass this bill and check off that we have an environmental protection bill, but if you wanna help keep the salt out of the watershed, let's come up with a much bigger plan to actually help municipalities with their local tax burden and build these 16 salt sheds that have been canceled just in the last couple years. If those were built, maybe we wouldn't be headed to 230 parts per million. So I I haven't determined where I'd vote on it, I wanted you to be aware that at 15 parts per million, we're a long ways from two thirty, but we need to move forward. I also want you to be aware that there's over 16 salt sheds that our municipalities can't afford to build cause they're afraid to raise the property taxes on their local taxpayers to come up with their 20% match. They don't have the 20% match. These salt sheds are now up to $809,100,000, $1,000,000. They don't wanna go back to their taxpayers for the additional 20%. So let's find a plan to do that rather than this. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Randolph.

[Representative Philip Jay Hooper]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of s two eighteen. This voluntary program would save Vermonters money while protecting our vehicles, infrastructure, and waterways. It's a fiscally responsible solution to a worsening problem.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Rutland City.

[Unidentified Representative from Rutland City]: Thank you, madam speaker. As I read the bill, it's, it's not voluntary. What it says to me is that both commercial and municipal applicators will be required to, keep records. I talked to the city of Rutland's DPW, and they said to me this, please don't make us keep any more records. We are getting cut a thousand times, whether it's by water quality, whether it's by a report on the sewage system. It's it's this continuous creep of of, of unnecessary, record keeping, and I would not support this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Are there any announcements? Member from Williston.

[Unidentified Representative from Williston]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to share that the Gone Guys film screening that had been canceled has now been rescheduled. So the women's caucus will be presenting the Vermont made documentary Gone Guys in Room 11 on April 29. It's a Wednesday, five to 06:30PM, and it's about a forty five minute long documentary. We will have a panel discussion afterward featuring featuring students and a teacher from Montpelier High School. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from panel.

[Unidentified Representative]: Madam speaker, the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies is in the card room today representing the 11 regional planning commissions around the state of Vermont. I hope you'll swing by to say hello to them. They are publicity shy by nature, so they wouldn't let me introduce them here on the floor, but I hope you'll go over there and get to know some regional planners. Thank you very much.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Shelburne.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Madam speaker, the caucus on Vermont's economy is meeting today at noon in Room 10. We will hear from the Vermont League and Vermont realtors, their positions on act one eighty one. Please join us if you can.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Dorset.

[Unidentified Representative from Dorset]: Madam speaker, the the National Guard Caucus will meet on Tuesday at 8AM in Room 10 for those who wanna participate. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 8AM. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Tuesday, April 14 at 10AM?

[Unidentified Representative from Williston]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Tuesday, 04/14/2026 at 10AM.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and this body